Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at using ways other than pixels. … So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed bag of results. I feel as a designer(suggester), that I cannot possibly allow something I've done to look laughably clumsy in some browsers. Contrary to the idea that users want to choose there own settings, my experience is that very very few even know they can do it, let alone want to be bothered! Is there a way around this, which provides a more consistent interface AND maintains user choice for those who want it? Idea about respecting users' choice is plain bullshit, this kind of meaningless discussions were going there for six years or so, and they lead to nowhere. Best way is to ignore them. And him. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
Hi, check the link you will find the soln :) http://news.softpedia.com/news/Safari-Font-Rendering-Scares-Windows-Users-57815.shtml http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html regards, - hariharan k - On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rimantas Liubertas riman...@gmail.comwrote: I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at using ways other than pixels. … So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed bag of results. I feel as a designer(suggester), that I cannot possibly allow something I've done to look laughably clumsy in some browsers. Contrary to the idea that users want to choose there own settings, my experience is that very very few even know they can do it, let alone want to be bothered! Is there a way around this, which provides a more consistent interface AND maintains user choice for those who want it? Idea about respecting users' choice is plain bullshit, this kind of meaningless discussions were going there for six years or so, and they lead to nowhere. Best way is to ignore them. And him. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Hariharan. K Web Designer *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
2009/7/7 designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk: I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at using ways other than pixels. When I read: http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4 I agreed with the author that the text size looked OK (he uses Georgia), so I tried knocking up a simple test/template and I found that Verdana 'looks' much bigger than Georgia, and Arial slightly smaller than Georgia. I also found that firefox was different to Safara, these two in turn being different to IE and Opera. IE7 looked huge and clumsy! See for yourself: http://www.betasite.fsnet.co.uk/gam/fontstyle.html So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed bag of results. I feel as a designer(suggester), that I cannot possibly allow something I've done to look laughably clumsy in some browsers. Contrary to the idea that users want to choose there own settings, my experience is that very very few even know they can do it, let alone want to be bothered! Is there a way around this, which provides a more consistent interface AND maintains user choice for those who want it? Different fonts have different sized letter forms; _of course_ they look different. Look up x-height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-height for starters. Verdana not only has a larger x-height than Georgia or Arial, it also has wider letters; that is why the Verdana sample occupies seven lines, while the Georgia and Arial samples only occupy six. Using the MeasureIt plugin for Firefox, I find that six lines occupies exactly the same amount of vertical space in all three fonts, which is what one would expect given that they have the same font-size and line-height. It's just that Verdana doesn't fit as many letters into the same space widthways, and so runs on to an extra line. If you expect all typefaces to occupy the exact same space letter-for-letter then you're going to have to turn your back on hundreds of years of typographical history. Using only monospaced fonts will give roughly the effect you desire ;-) Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
Try using font-size:0.8em this is a better method for font-size accessibility -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of designer Sent: 07 July 2009 12:20 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites] I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at using ways other than pixels. When I read: http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4 I agreed with the author that the text size looked OK (he uses Georgia), so I tried knocking up a simple test/template and I found that Verdana 'looks' much bigger than Georgia, and Arial slightly smaller than Georgia. I also found that firefox was different to Safara, these two in turn being different to IE and Opera. IE7 looked huge and clumsy! See for yourself: http://www.betasite.fsnet.co.uk/gam/fontstyle.html So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed bag of results. I feel as a designer(suggester), that I cannot possibly allow something I've done to look laughably clumsy in some browsers. Contrary to the idea that users want to choose there own settings, my experience is that very very few even know they can do it, let alone want to be bothered! Is there a way around this, which provides a more consistent interface AND maintains user choice for those who want it? Thanks, Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** __ This email has been scanned by Netintelligence http://www.netintelligence.com/email *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
Hi Nick, - Original Message - From: Nick Fitzsimons n...@nickfitz.co.uk To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites] Different fonts have different sized letter forms; _of course_ they look different. Look up x-height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-height for starters. Verdana not only has a larger x-height than Georgia or Arial, it also has wider letters; that is why the Verdana sample occupies seven lines, while the Georgia and Arial samples only occupy six. Using the MeasureIt plugin for Firefox, I find that six lines occupies exactly the same amount of vertical space in all three fonts, which is what one would expect given that they have the same font-size and line-height. It's just that Verdana doesn't fit as many letters into the same space widthways, and so runs on to an extra line. If you expect all typefaces to occupy the exact same space letter-for-letter then you're going to have to turn your back on hundreds of years of typographical history. Using only monospaced fonts will give roughly the effect you desire ;-) Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ Precisely! Of course I don't expect all fonts to be the same, which is why selecting 100% text doesn't work - some are way too big! Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Mario Theodorou wrote: Try using font-size:0.8em this is a better method for font-size accessibility Which will be too small for me (and many other people) to read comfortably. -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of designer Sent: 07 July 2009 12:20 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites] I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at using ways other than pixels. When I read: http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4 I agreed with the author that the text size looked OK (he uses Georgia), so I tried knocking up a simple test/template and I found that Verdana 'looks' much bigger than Georgia, and Arial slightly smaller than Georgia. I also found that firefox was different to Safara, these two in turn being different to IE and Opera. IE7 looked huge and clumsy! See for yourself: http://www.betasite.fsnet.co.uk/gam/fontstyle.html So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed bag of results. I feel as a designer(suggester), that I cannot possibly allow something I've done to look laughably clumsy in some browsers. Contrary to the idea that users want to choose there own settings, my experience is that very very few even know they can do it, let alone want to be bothered! Is there a way around this, which provides a more consistent interface AND maintains user choice for those who want it? -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Hi Lyn Won't guarantee this is the source of your woes, but on the Operations page, the h2OPERATIONS isn't closed. Another couple of minor points - I'd suggest adjusting the line spacing on your lis - in Firefox they look crowded by comparison with the para above; I'd also suggest using spaced endashes (#8211;) rather than hyphens where appropriate e.g. dividing the Latin and common names of the weeds illustrated. Elizabeth Spiegel Web editing 0409 986 158 GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001 www.spiegelweb.com.au From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lynette Smith Sent: Saturday, 25 October 2008 1:00 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue? Good morning http://www.westernwebdesign.com.au/EWAN/index.html Two pages uploaded: Home and Operation. Does anyone know why the font-size (specified in css - body 80%) is different on these two pages? Home is the correct one, but it is bigger on the second page and the succeeding page (not uploaded). Thanks! Lyn www.westernwebdesign Perth, Western Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Hi Elizabeth. Won't guarantee this is the source of your woes, but on the Operations page, the h2OPERATIONS isn't closed. Yes - how embarrassing! Can't believe I did that! Another couple of minor points - I'd suggest adjusting the line spacing on your lis - in Firefox they look crowded by comparison with the para above; I'd also suggest using spaced endashes (#8211;) rather than hyphens where appropriate e.g. dividing the Latin and common names of the weeds illustrated. Thanks for the tips - much appreciate it. Kind regards Lyn www.westernwebdesign.com.au Perth, Western Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Lynette Smith wrote: Won't guarantee this is the source of your woes, but on the Operations page, the h2OPERATIONS isn't closed. Yes - how embarrassing! Can't believe I did that! To err is human - typos happen :-) but this is yet another example where running the W3C validator on the page would have immediately identified the cause of what looked like a CSS display issue. FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Hi all my name is Aaron and I own the new site cssboard.co.uk I am writing to you all today to see if anyone could help me out with 3 minutes of their time. I am startinga new magazine (FREE) called Css Design it is a magazine designed at reaching the designers of the web world who loved and will only stick to the css standard way of life. In short I am looking for as much help as I can writing the articles ( all adverts go to you and you companies / projects) The themes this month is as follows IN THIS ISSUE The Growth of Gallery Design Competition Sites (Article) How to create the perfect css menu navigation (Tutorial) Where is design heading in 2009(Article) The Perfect Layout (Tutorial) Clean Code (Article) Design Competition - Design a new church site (Prize award of free css bible book) Resources ( A collection of links that will build up as the magazine gets better) 3 - 4 pages of advertising throughout the issue Best CSS Gallery - We will be doing an article on the best css gallery site we can find. If you can help please let me know , Thanks Aaron *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Hi Aaron, I'm more than happy to supply a CSS menu tutorial for a standard or drop down menu. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Wheeler Sent: 25 October 2008 18:57 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue? Hi all my name is Aaron and I own the new site cssboard.co.uk I am writing to you all today to see if anyone could help me out with 3 minutes of their time. I am startinga new magazine (FREE) called Css Design it is a magazine designed at reaching the designers of the web world who loved and will only stick to the css standard way of life. In short I am looking for as much help as I can writing the articles ( all adverts go to you and you companies / projects) The themes this month is as follows IN THIS ISSUE The Growth of Gallery Design Competition Sites (Article) How to create the perfect css menu navigation (Tutorial) Where is design heading in 2009(Article) The Perfect Layout (Tutorial) Clean Code (Article) Design Competition - Design a new church site (Prize award of free css bible book) Resources ( A collection of links that will build up as the magazine gets better) 3 - 4 pages of advertising throughout the issue Best CSS Gallery - We will be doing an article on the best css gallery site we can find. If you can help please let me know , Thanks Aaron *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1744 - Release Date: 24/10/2008 18:08 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
To err is human - typos happen :-) but this is yet another example where running the W3C validator on the page would have immediately identified the cause of what looked like a CSS display issue. You are SO right, Hassan -it is usually the first thing I do when I have a problem - I can only blame it on a senior moment! :-[ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Because all the paragraphs are wrapped into a h2 h2OPERATIONh2 pThe network has an executive committee who have been meeting monthly since 1996. This committee discusses and acts on EWAN busin The h2 after OPERATION hasn't been closed. Cheers, Johan PS. I don't think this is a Support mailing list. Johan Douma [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.johandownunder.com www.no-mans-land.net 2008/10/25 Lynette Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good morning http://www.westernwebdesign.com.au/EWAN/index.html Two pages uploaded: Home and Operation. Does anyone know why the font-size (specified in css - body 80%) is different on these two pages? Home is the correct one, but it is bigger on the second page and the succeeding page (not uploaded). Thanks! Lyn www.westernwebdesign Perth, Western Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size inheritance issue?
Thanks Johan - stupid of me! Lyn *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size-adjust (was: RE: Disabling Fonts in Font Stacks)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Terrence Wood wrote:
If, in laymans terms, font-size-adjust allows you to specify the
font-size based on the x-height of a preferred font-family, how is a
rendering engine supposed to deal with this if said font is missing?
Font-size-adjust works based on the first font specified in the list
for font-family, doesn't matter if the font exists on the system or not.
example.
p {font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; font-size-adjust:
0.54;}
On Win OS, Lucida Grande is not present (OS X only font), the size of
the text will nevertheless be adjusted (slightly enlarged) as Arial
has an aspect ratio of 0.52. This is interesting in the case of a
stylesheet that specifies 'Verdana, Arial, sans-serif', and where the
page author bases all his work on the size of Verdana (we all know
that this is big font, with rather large aspect ratio). Verdana at
12px maybe or not be readable to the user, Arial at 12px looks and
feels much smaller, and will probably be harder to read for the user.
And how does it resolve line-height issues for fonts that have a low
aspect ratio?
Could you clarify ?
Line-height depends on the used value for font-family, basically.
Personally, I would like to see some decent column support before
trying to exert this degree of control on font-sizing.
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Font-size-adjust (was: RE: Disabling Fonts in Font Stacks)
On 12/3/07, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If, in laymans terms, font-size-adjust allows you to specify the font-size based on the x-height of a preferred font-family, how is a rendering engine supposed to deal with this if said font is missing? My thinking was way off here - I was thinking that somehow only the bowl was adjusted. Strange but true. I can see now how handy this property could be. Pretty good explanation at http://www.quackit.com/css/properties/css_font-size-adjust.cfm: ...if 12px Georgia (with an aspect value of 0.50) was unavailable and an available font had an aspect value of 0.40, the font-size of the substitute would be 12 * (0.50/0.40) = 15px. kind regards Terrence Wood. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size 62.5% problem
On 2 Jul 2007, at 3:10 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Paul Collins apparently typed: I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5% Please note that... Toldja. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size 62.5% problem
Paul Collins wrote: The font stays slightly larger than 11px, when I set it to 1.1em. this has worked fine on other sites, so not sure why it isn't working here. Any ideas? check that you haven't set a minimum font size in your browser preferences. ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size 62.5% problem
Thanks for your replies everyone. My target would be Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera. This seems to have worked in the past on those browsers. It has worked fine for me in the past. Kepler, I tried adding it inline to the body tag, still can't get it to work. Tony, I tried getting rid of the minimum font-size in firefox and still no result! Can't for the life of me figure this out! Cheers On 02/07/07, Nick Gleitzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Jul 2007, at 3:10 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Paul Collins apparently typed: I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5% Please note that... Toldja. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size 62.5% problem
personally I have always had trouble with percentages and hence only use em's Maybe if you switch over to all em's it may help. On 7/2/07, Paul Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5%; property to the body of my document. Basically, it doesn't seem to be working and I can't figure out why. The font stays slightly larger than 11px, when I set it to 1.1em. this has worked fine on other sites, so not sure why it isn't working here. Any ideas? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font-size 62.5% problem
On 2007/07/01 23:40 (GMT+0100) Paul Collins apparently typed:
I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5%
Please note that if and when you do get it fixed to your liking, it
won't be to the liking of normal web users[1], particularly those who
employ a Gecko minimum font size, or user styles that override 'body
{font-size: 62.5%}'[2].
[1]
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html
http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace
[2]
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html
--
All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting, and training in righteoousness.
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] Font size menu
Why an ordered list? Regardless of semantic purposes, you may come across some cross-browser compatibility issues if you are doing any kind of image replacement or background images. I would go with an unordered list as you dont need to go to the smallest size before getting to the medium and then largest size. Or drum roll please. Use my swiss army knife, the definition list Dt font sizes Dd small Dd medium dd- large. It could happen! Ted www.tdrake.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren West Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:58 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font size menu Evening group Has anyone got any suggestions as to how I would mark up a font size menu, for example: pFont size:/p ol liA/li liA/li liA/li /ol With font sizes defined ever larger on the list items as a visual indication and the ordered list from an accessible unstyled point of view. Daz
Re: [WSG] Font size menu
Cheers Ted!Even as I read ;-)What are the browser issues with ol's? I would go and research but I gotta get this project out the door by Friday :-oAs an unordered list would it not loose meaning especially if I signfy the choices visually using the same letter A? I could always use em for the current choice. DazOn 15/02/06, Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why an ordered list? Regardless of semantic purposes, you may come across some cross-browser compatibility issues if you are doing any kind of image replacement or background images. I would go with an unordered list as you don't need to go to the smallest size before getting to the medium and then largest size. Or… drum roll please…. Use my swiss army knife, the definition list Dt – font sizes Dd – small Dd – medium dd- large. It could happen! Ted www.tdrake.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Darren West Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:58 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font size menu Evening group Has anyone got any suggestions as to how I would mark up a font size menu, for example: pFont size:/p ol liA/li liA/li liA/li /ol With font sizes defined ever larger on the list items as a visual indication and the ordered list from an accessible unstyled point of view. Daz
RE: [WSG] Font size menu
Its been a while since Ive messed with it. But as I remember, if you use list-style-type:none on an ol, you can get some odd positioning in IE6. Does anyone else remember this bug? Are you using html or xhtml? If html, wrap the a in smalla/small biga/big Personally, I dont like those tags but I know others do. You can then use CSS to define the look of those letters ted From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren West Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:38 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size menu Cheers Ted! Even as I read ;-) What are the browser issues with ol's? I would go and research but I gotta get this project out the door by Friday :-o As an unordered list would it not loose meaning especially if I signfy the choices visually using the same letter A? I could always use em for the current choice. Daz On 15/02/06, Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why an ordered list? Regardless of semantic purposes, you may come across some cross-browser compatibility issues if you are doing any kind of image replacement or background images. I would go with an unordered list as you don't need to go to the smallest size before getting to the medium and then largest size. Or drum roll please. Use my swiss army knife, the definition list Dt font sizes Dd small Dd medium dd- large. It could happen! Ted www.tdrake.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Darren West Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:58 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font size menu Evening group Has anyone got any suggestions as to how I would mark up a font size menu, for example: pFont size:/p ol liA/li liA/li liA/li /ol With font sizes defined ever larger on the list items as a visual indication and the ordered list from an accessible unstyled point of view. Daz
Re: [WSG] Font size menu
Thanks for the pointer :-)XHTML1.0 Strict, can I use smallbig? not come across them before.Had a go for the old definition list but it screws up my font sizes for some reason, I can feel a coffee coming on. Quick off topic question: is the census of opinion to lop off the quoted text or leave it to the email client?DazOn 15/02/06, Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been a while since I've messed with it. But as I remember, if you use list-style-type:none on an ol, you can get some odd positioning in IE6. Does anyone else remember this bug? Are you using html or xhtml? If html, wrap the a in smalla/small biga/big Personally, I don't like those tags but I know others do. You can then use CSS to define the look of those letters ted From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Darren West Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:38 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size menu Cheers Ted! Even as I read ;-) What are the browser issues with ol's? I would go and research but I gotta get this project out the door by Friday :-o As an unordered list would it not loose meaning especially if I signfy the choices visually using the same letter A? I could always use em for the current choice. Daz On 15/02/06, Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why an ordered list? Regardless of semantic purposes, you may come across some cross-browser compatibility issues if you are doing any kind of image replacement or background images. I would go with an unordered list as you don't need to go to the smallest size before getting to the medium and then largest size. Or… drum roll please…. Use my swiss army knife, the definition list Dt – font sizes Dd – small Dd – medium dd- large. It could happen! Ted www.tdrake.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Darren West Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:58 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font size menu Evening group Has anyone got any suggestions as to how I would mark up a font size menu, for example: pFont size:/p ol liA/li liA/li liA/li /ol With font sizes defined ever larger on the list items as a visual indication and the ordered list from an accessible unstyled point of view. Daz
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
After reading a well-known css author's statement in his brand-new book that keywords worked best for him, I just went the keyword way (including the Tan hack for Windows/IE) using small as the base font, with all the rest specified in %. (http://www.birchhillaccommodations.com/) Got comments from Windows/IE users that the text was too small, and that small was too small as a base font, in that, at their largest zoom, they still felt the text was too, well small. Will I get the same response if I change over to % for body font (and ems for the rest) and it's anything *but* 100.01%? (F'rinstance, the aforementioned 90.1%?) Wendy Buddy Quaid wrote: ... You should try using the keywords which are relative to the users font-size setting. Xx-small x-small small etc... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Hi,
So would is this the solution to the original problem:
div style=font-size: 0.90em;
Some text
div style=font-size: 0.80em;
More text
/div
Some text
/div
or an aside?
C
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem,
where IE handles percentages much more accurately than em?
You can safely use ems as long as your highest font size is
something else, like %.
For instance, as long as you have something like
html { font-size: 100%; }
you can do anything you like with ems after that, like
body { font-size: 0.9em; }
etc
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Hi,
An experiment revealed this recursive down slide.
C
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Chris Kennon wrote:
div#something *{
font-size: 0.9em;
}
That's the quickest way of producing an ever decreasing cascade of
font sizes for every level of nesting you have within
div#something...so not really.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
wendy wrote:
After reading a well-known css author's statement in his brand-new book
that keywords worked best for him, I just went the keyword way
(including the Tan hack for Windows/IE) using small as the base font,
with all the rest specified in %. (http://www.birchhillaccommodations.com/)
Got comments from Windows/IE users that the text was too small, and that
small was too small as a base font, in that, at their largest zoom,
they still felt the text was too, well small.
Why would you expect different?
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/birchhillLinux.png
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/birchhillXP.png
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=medium shows the applicable
meaning of medium (1st entry), but you aren't using medium for your
paragraphs, but instead 90% of small, the same size you use for the fine
print (.copyright). :-O
* html body {
font-size: x-small; /*for IE5/Win */
f/ont-size: small; /* for other IEs */
}
p {font-size: 90%;}
.copyright {font-size: 90%;}
The result is all but your title text is not only smaller than my
properly preferenced medium, but also smaller than the smallish browser
menu and urlbar text. Even in a standards-compliant browser your
paragraph text is too small, because its size is smaller than medium.
--
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
Matthew 6:27 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:22:33 -0400, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: properly preferenced medium according to who/what? -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
Tom Livingston wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:22:33 -0400, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: properly preferenced medium according to who/what? According to what you failed to quote from what I wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=medium shows the applicable meaning of medium (1st entry) which says: Something ... that ... represents a condition midway between extremes My browser preference is set to midway between extremes, which is exactly the right size (not too big and not too small) when pages use medium/100%/1em (or do not size at all) normal paragraph text. -- Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Matthew 6:27 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:40:55 -0400, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My browser preference is set to midway between extremes, which is exactly the right size (not too big and not too small) when pages use medium/100%/1em (or do not size at all) normal paragraph text. So, using keywords, what happens when a user sets his/her browser pref. to 'small', and an author specifies 'medium'? Is the users text size changed? Sorry, I don't use keywords... -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
Tom Livingston wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:40:55 -0400, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My browser preference is set to midway between extremes, which is exactly the right size (not too big and not too small) when pages use medium/100%/1em (or do not size at all) normal paragraph text. So, using keywords, what happens when a user sets his/her browser pref. to 'small', Strictly speaking, small is impossible in all browsers I'm familiar with. In Netscape 4, Konqueror, Gecko Opera, a user, actively or passively, makes some choice, and whatever that choice is becomes his medium. In IE6 standards mode, a user can choose smaller, smallest, larger, largest, or medium, but whatever that choice is becomes his medium. In the broken old insecure IE4/5, and IE6 quirks mode, it works about the same, except for being buggy. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-IE6.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-IE5.html and an author specifies 'medium'? Is the users text size changed? When an author specifies medium, the user gets his preference setting, however derived. -- Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Matthew 6:27 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
Tom Livingston So, using keywords, what happens when a user sets his/her browser pref. to 'small', and an author specifies 'medium'? Is the users text size changed? A user doesn't choose between small/medium/large as their preference. They'd set what size they want their 'medium' to be set As an author, by specifying medium, you then end up with the value the user has specified. Patrick __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Size Issue (causes unwanted wrapping?)
Jeff wrote: I have tested this on my local machine (a PC running Windows XP Professional). I have looked at it in 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x720, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 and I find no difference. I am using IE 6.0.2 and Firefox 1.0.6 for testing and this page dispalys exactly the same in all resolutions of each browser. Geez, I'd expect everything to be smaller the higher the resolution. :-p 1600x1200 displays everything 1/4 the size of 800x600 (1/2 height X 1/2 width = 1/4 area). Yet on a Windows laptop using a screen res of 1600x1200, the top nav items and the side nav items overlap and wrap. http://www.nuvotechnologies.com/learning_center.htm I would like for the top and bottom borders of each mouseover on the side navigation to be 100% of the div they are contained in. I would like for the top navigation items to now wrap back under but to remain in one single row. How is it that it works for me across many resolutions fine but goes beserk on this laptop? I am sensing this will be an issue with a Mac as well? It's almost certainly a DPI issue, as you're using print media font-size values, which are dependent on both screen resolution and DPI for determining their physical size. Odds are that laptop shipped with large fonts (120 DPI) enabled instead of the WinXP normal (96 DPI) default, or maybe even higher (e.g. 150% = 144 DPI). https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69205#c16 I see plenty overlapping too http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/nuvotech.png though little else until I zoom at least 2 steps. Good thing I'm not stuck using IE, because there'd be virtually no way to make the text on that page big enough to see without mucking up my nicely adjusted system settings. To fix the overlapping, dispense with your print media sizing. Size text in ems/%/keywords, and size most containers in ems, so that text will always have the containing block space it requires. -- Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Matthew 6:27 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords]
According to 'Designing with web standards' by Jeffrey Zeldman keywords are used to size up and down the users specified size. It doesn't matter what size or how they choose their size -- in CSS, 'medium', will always be what they users specified size is set to and then scaled up or down by using the small, x-small, and so on. Also, text will not go any smaller than 9px which is considered the smallest 'legibile' font size. So, if they user has a specified size of 11px then we have this: Medium = 11px; Small = 10px; X-small = 9px; Xx-small = 9px; X-small and xx-small are the same size because they will not go beyond the 9px mark when using keywords. Buddy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:05 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within [using keywords] Tom Livingston So, using keywords, what happens when a user sets his/her browser pref. to 'small', and an author specifies 'medium'? Is the users text size changed? A user doesn't choose between small/medium/large as their preference. They'd set what size they want their 'medium' to be set As an author, by specifying medium, you then end up with the value the user has specified. Patrick __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:53:20 -0700, Chris Kennon wrote: div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text div style=font-size: 0.80em; More text /div Some text /div Generally I tend to think its 'bad typography' to have different sizes all over the page. In the rare case where this was what I actually wanted to achieve, I would set the 0.80em value to 0.9em in the knowledge that 0.9 * 0.9 is 0.81 and thats the value I wanted. You can't reset the tree, but you can understand what changes as you descend it. warmly Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Lea de Groot wrote: I didn't write the rule under scorn, the original thread follows this reply. I'm not a fan of inline styling or piling up values. I've worked with stylesheets since Designing Killer Websites by Dave Siegel; having quickly embraced the need for the separation of style and content and behavior. This I hope lends some validity to my dedication of furthering web- standards, as it appears sometimes in question. Respectfully, Chris Kennon On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:53:20 -0700, Chris Kennon wrote: div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text div style=font-size: 0.80em; More text /div Some text /div Generally I tend to think its 'bad typography' to have different sizes all over the page. In the rare case where this was what I actually wanted to achieve, I would set the 0.80em value to 0.9em in the knowledge that 0.9 * 0.9 is 0.81 and thats the value I wanted. You can't reset the tree, but you can understand what changes as you descend it. warmly Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Janelle Clemens wrote: If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the font-size of a box element (stop the inheritance)?I am having a hard time explaining myself so maybe an example would be better. So if you have this code, the More text would be 0.80em relation to the 0.90em. div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text div style=font-size: 0.80em; More text /div Some text /div Is there a way to reset the font-size on the second div so the 0.80em is actually 0.80em relation to the body of 1.0em without having to code like this? div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text /div div style=font-size: 0.80em; More text /div div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text /div Thanks, Janelle ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Hi,
Maybe something like:
div#something *{
font-size: 0.9em;
}
On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Janelle Clemens wrote:
If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the
font-size
of a box element (stop the inheritance)?I am having a hard time
explaining myself so maybe an example would be better.
So if you have this code, the More text would be 0.80em relation
to the
0.90em.
div style=font-size: 0.90em;
Some text
div style=font-size: 0.80em;
More text
/div
Some text
/div
Is there a way to reset the font-size on the second div so the
0.80em is
actually 0.80em relation to the body of 1.0em without having to
code like
this?
div style=font-size: 0.90em;
Some text
/div
div style=font-size: 0.80em;
More text
/div
div style=font-size: 0.90em;
Some text
/div
Thanks,
Janelle
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
I don't believe you can stop the inheritance. You should try using the keywords which are relative to the users font-size setting. Xx-small x-small small etc... Otherwise you might can try mixing and matching percentages with ems? I have not tried it but maybe something like: div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text div style=font-size: 90%; //-- maybe that will make it 90% OF .90em essentially dropping the size 10%? More text /div Some text /div Buddy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janelle Clemens Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:51 PM To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Subject: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the font-size of a box element (stop the inheritance)?I am having a hard time explaining myself so maybe an example would be better. So if you have this code, the More text would be 0.80em relation to the 0.90em. div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text div style=font-size: 0.80em; More text /div Some text /div Is there a way to reset the font-size on the second div so the 0.80em is actually 0.80em relation to the body of 1.0em without having to code like this? div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text /div div style=font-size: 0.80em; More text /div div style=font-size: 0.90em; Some text /div Thanks, Janelle ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Lea de Groot wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:00 -0700, Janelle Clemens wrote:
If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the font-size
of a box element (stop the inheritance)?
No, not really.
I normally get around this by only setting font-size in two places, as
a general rule (which always has exceptions, but very careful ones :))
The two places are:
- on the body tag, eg
body {
font-size: 90.1%;
}
- on leaf elements, ie. I will rarely set something like:
#wrapper {
font-size: 0.9em;
}
I am more likely to put:
h1 {
font-size: 1.6em;
}
and
div.subnote {
font-size: 0.9em;
}
Both of these will be 'leaves' in the DOM, ie they will not have any
children (except maybe a span)
HIH!
Lea
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem, where
IE handles percentages much more accurately than em?
It would be more ideal to us em, but it seems more practical to use
percentages for better accuracy of font scaling? What do others think?
see
http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/#c790
Geoff
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Chris Kennon wrote:
div#something *{
font-size: 0.9em;
}
That's the quickest way of producing an ever decreasing cascade of font
sizes for every level of nesting you have within div#something...so not
really.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem, where
IE handles percentages much more accurately than em?
You can safely use ems as long as your highest font size is something
else, like %.
For instance, as long as you have something like
html { font-size: 100%; }
you can do anything you like with ems after that, like
body { font-size: 0.9em; }
etc
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font-size em and reseting within
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem,
where IE handles percentages much more accurately than em?
You can safely use ems as long as your highest font size is
something else, like %.
For instance, as long as you have something like
html { font-size: 100%; }
you can do anything you like with ems after that, like
body { font-size: 0.9em; }
etc
Can you give a technical explanation of what is going on there? What is
happening inside the user agent that once it sets it basic
initialisation through such declarations, after that it can then render
relative units correctly?
Geoff
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
I know there are a lot of old school designers out there (and when I
say designer I mean those people who spend their hours in photoshop
and NOT doing the markup) who still insist that font-sizes be in point
size. That is simply not practical in the web-space (as, I'm sure you
know)...generally I ignore them and their silly point sizes. I find
the best method for font resizing is using the keyword syntax, i.e.
xx-small, x-small, small, large, etc
Generally I'd set the base font to x-small/small (depending on what
the design shows) and then use em's to inc them for headers and strong
tags, etc.
body {
font: x-small/130% Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
color: #333;
}
h1 {
font-size: 2em;
}
h2 {
fon-size: 1.8em;
}
...
...
HTH
D
On 8/17/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Mates,
I've reviewed articles on A List Apart and the WSG sites, as well as, The CSS
Anthology, but I
really would like a more defintive answer pertaining to the best method for
re-sizing text.
Therefore, I thought it prudent to turn to the experts!
The following is my current set of rules for allowing visitors to zoom text:
body
{margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 76%;
background: #6A6A8F;}
#container
{width: 100%;
font: normal 1em/14pt verdana, arial, sans-serif;
text-align: justify;
background: #fff;}
Any advice regarding this important design and accessible feature is greatly
appreciated!
Respectfully submitted,
Mario S. Cisneros
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
We are in the middle of redesigning our company's website and after using pt
for so long ems have been challenging to get used to. I have declared body
{font-size: 1em;} and have adjusted from there (i.e. sidenav {font-size:
0.80em;}.Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
Thanks,
Janelle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Darren Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:55 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
I know there are a lot of old school designers out there (and when I say
designer I mean those people who spend their hours in photoshop and NOT
doing the markup) who still insist that font-sizes be in point size. That
is simply not practical in the web-space (as, I'm sure you know)...generally
I ignore them and their silly point sizes. I find the best method for font
resizing is using the keyword syntax, i.e.
xx-small, x-small, small, large, etc
Generally I'd set the base font to x-small/small (depending on what the
design shows) and then use em's to inc them for headers and strong tags,
etc.
body {
font: x-small/130% Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
color: #333;
}
h1 {
font-size: 2em;
}
h2 {
fon-size: 1.8em;
}
...
...
HTH
D
On 8/17/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Mates,
I've reviewed articles on A List Apart and the WSG sites, as well as,
The CSS Anthology, but I really would like a more defintive answer
pertaining to the best method for re-sizing text.
Therefore, I thought it prudent to turn to the experts!
The following is my current set of rules for allowing visitors to zoom
text:
body
{margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 76%;
background: #6A6A8F;}
#container
{width: 100%;
font: normal 1em/14pt verdana, arial, sans-serif;
text-align: justify;
background: #fff;}
Any advice regarding this important design and accessible feature is
greatly appreciated!
Respectfully submitted,
Mario S. Cisneros
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
130% in this case is the line height. it's short hand for:
body {
font-family: verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 130%;
}
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Hi Janelle
This is CSS shorthand, it is the same as font-size:x-small;
line-height:130%; font-family...;}
Personally, I like to write out the long format while testing my pages. I
just seem to have less bugs when I don't shorten the body font styles.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Janelle Clemens
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:15 PM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
We are in the middle of redesigning our company's website and after using pt
for so long ems have been challenging to get used to. I have declared body
{font-size: 1em;} and have adjusted from there (i.e. sidenav {font-size:
0.80em;}.Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
Thanks,
Janelle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Darren Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:55 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
I know there are a lot of old school designers out there (and when I say
designer I mean those people who spend their hours in photoshop and NOT
doing the markup) who still insist that font-sizes be in point size. That
is simply not practical in the web-space (as, I'm sure you know)...generally
I ignore them and their silly point sizes. I find the best method for font
resizing is using the keyword syntax, i.e.
xx-small, x-small, small, large, etc
Generally I'd set the base font to x-small/small (depending on what the
design shows) and then use em's to inc them for headers and strong tags,
etc.
body {
font: x-small/130% Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
color: #333;
}
h1 {
font-size: 2em;
}
h2 {
fon-size: 1.8em;
}
...
...
HTH
D
On 8/17/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Mates,
I've reviewed articles on A List Apart and the WSG sites, as well as,
The CSS Anthology, but I really would like a more defintive answer
pertaining to the best method for re-sizing text.
Therefore, I thought it prudent to turn to the experts!
The following is my current set of rules for allowing visitors to zoom
text:
body
{margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 76%;
background: #6A6A8F;}
#container
{width: 100%;
font: normal 1em/14pt verdana, arial, sans-serif;
text-align: justify;
background: #fff;}
Any advice regarding this important design and accessible feature is
greatly appreciated!
Respectfully submitted,
Mario S. Cisneros
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Hi Janelle,
The slash in my example separates font-size from line-height.
Regards,
Mario
We are in the middle of redesigning our company's website and after using pt
for so long ems
have been challenging to get used to. I have declared body {font-size:
1em;} and have adjusted
from there (i.e. sidenav {font-size: 0.80em;}.Can you explain what the
slash in your example
is (body {font: x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a
browser hack?
Thanks,
Janelle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren
Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:55 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
I know there are a lot of old school designers out there (and when I say
designer I mean those
people who spend their hours in photoshop and NOT doing the markup) who still
insist that
font-sizes be in point size. That is simply not practical in the web-space
(as, I'm sure you
know)...generally I ignore them and their silly point sizes. I find the best
method for font
resizing is using the keyword syntax, i.e.
xx-small, x-small, small, large, etc
Generally I'd set the base font to x-small/small (depending on what the
design shows) and then
use em's to inc them for headers and strong tags, etc.
body {
font: x-small/130% Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
color: #333;
}
h1 {
font-size: 2em;
}
h2 {
fon-size: 1.8em;
}
...
...
HTH
D
On 8/17/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Mates,
I've reviewed articles on A List Apart and the WSG sites, as well as, The
CSS Anthology, but
I really would like a more defintive answer
pertaining to the best method for re-sizing text.
Therefore, I thought it prudent to turn to the experts!
The following is my current set of rules for allowing visitors to zoom
text:
body
{margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 76%;
background: #6A6A8F;}
#container
{width: 100%;
font: normal 1em/14pt verdana, arial, sans-serif;
text-align: justify;
background: #fff;}
Any advice regarding this important design and accessible feature is
greatly appreciated!
Respectfully submitted,
Mario S. Cisneros
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Ahhh, thank you. Does it always have to have the slash or can you use a
space? All other css short cuts seem to use a space, is the
size/line-height short cut special?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Brian Cummiskey
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
130% in this case is the line height. it's short hand for:
body {
font-family: verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 130%;
}
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Oh, another quick question. Is it better to use % for line-height versus
pixel?Like I said I am used to using set sizes (pt px) for everything.
This css is such a learning/breaking bad habits adventure.
:-)
Janelle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Brian Cummiskey
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
130% in this case is the line height. it's short hand for:
body {
font-family: verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 130%;
}
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Mario,
/* use percentile on html to prevent IE from seemingly using a logrimthic increase and decrease
in font size when scaling (IE
Bug) and use 100.1% to prevent a bug in Opera, and then set your font
sizes in em's after that. Declare Body and Table Font size together to
compensate for an IE bug of Table not in heriting font info (I think) */
html {font-size:100.1%;}
body, table {font-size:1em;}
A little bit of light reading:
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BrowserBugs
http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=FAF76print=true-- __Bugs are, by definition, necessary.
Just ask Microsoft!www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)www.arionshome.com (Personal)www.freexenon.com
(Consulting)__Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
http://www.maccaws.org/Web Standards Projecthttp://www.webstandards.org/Web Standards Group
http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/Guild of Accessible Web Designershttp://www.gawds.org/
Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following is my current set of rules for allowing visitors to zoom text:
body
{margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 76%;
background: #6A6A8F;}
#container
{width: 100%;
font: normal 1em/14pt verdana, arial, sans-serif;
text-align: justify;
background: #fff;}
Any advice regarding this important design and accessible feature is greatly
appreciated!Respectfully submitted,Mario S. Cisneros
As long as it will zoom up to 200% without breaking the layout or
overlapping itself (and not be unreadable when zoomed down) there are
may relative sizing methods that will work for you .
Typographers rarely, if ever, justify unserifed fonts with Linotype; and
for similar reasons(rivers and lakes) neither serif *nor* unserifed
fonts work well on the Web.
Some of us over the age of 40 prefer a setting something like this:
body, html {margin: 0; padding: 0; }
body { background-color: #6A6A8F; color: #000; font: 100.01%/1.3 geneva,
verdana, arial, sans-serif; }
#container { background-color: #fff; color: #000; text-align: left;
width: 100%; }
pDifferent stroke for different folks./p
Regards,
David Laakso
--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Janelle Clemens wrote: Oh, another quick question. Is it better to use % for line-height versus pixel?Like I said I am used to using set sizes (pt px) for everything. This css is such a learning/breaking bad habits adventure. Actually the best answer should be neither, but due to Gecko bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196270 , there is not always a clearly best answer. For line-height, pt px are among the clearly worst answers. Read here for what should be the best answer: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/line-height.html -- Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Matthew 6:27 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font size in a table
On 4/7/05 2:42 PM, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hope could just have easily changed from an incomplete HTML4.01 Transitional doctype to a complete version. This is not a criticism of Hope, as she may have had other reasons for moving to XHML. This was not a conscience nor educated decision. As a newbie to css and web standards, I have been learning by using resources such as this helpful list, various books (as recommended on this list), and templates offered on the web. The main template I've been using is derived from Owen Briggs' generic text styles template found at: http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/ and http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/template.html It is from this template that I picked up html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en lang=en I would be very interested to know the pros cons of using this! Regards, Hope ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font size in a table
You have an incomplete doctype which makes browsers go into quicks mode and then font size inheritance is ignored inside a table. Russ I created a simple webpage containing a few paragraphs, a list and a table (for tabular data). For some reason that I cannot for the life of me work out, the font size of the text is much bigger in the table than elsewhere on the page. (Tested in FF, Safari, Opera/mac). It's driving me nuts! I want the text in the table to be the same size as elsewhere! What am I doing wrong??? Could someone please enlighten me? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font size in a table
Thanks, Russ! I've fixed the doctype on the real page and it works beautifully now. The page is on a site with a non-web standards design that I've inherited. It's due for a revamp in a couple of months when I plan to introduce standards. I thought I'd start to experiment with this new page but made the mistake of using a copy of an old page as my starting point. Updating the doctype hadn't occurred to me -- but it will now! Thanks again, Hope On 4/7/05 11:18 AM, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have an incomplete doctype which makes browsers go into quicks mode and then font size inheritance is ignored inside a table. Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] font size in a table
Hi Hope, This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the font-size in the body element. I've asked this question before but is there a standard way to set the font size across all elements (irrespsective of inheritance)? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hope Stewart Sent: Monday, 4 July 2005 11:12 AM To: Web Standards Group Subject: [WSG] font size in a table I created a simple webpage containing a few paragraphs, a list and a table (for tabular data). For some reason that I cannot for the life of me work out, the font size of the text is much bigger in the table than elsewhere on the page. (Tested in FF, Safari, Opera/mac). It's driving me nuts! I want the text in the table to be the same size as elsewhere! What am I doing wrong??? Could someone please enlighten me? A mock-up of the page is here: http://hopestew.customer.netspace.net.au/ And the css is here: http://hopestew.customer.netspace.net.au/css/style1.css Hope Stewart ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font size in a table
On 7/4/05, Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Hope,
This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my
workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and
li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the
font-size in the body element.
I've asked this question before but is there a standard way to set the
font size across all elements (irrespsective of inheritance)?
The modified Global White Space Reset has this:
* {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 100%; /* This sets _everything_ to one size */
}
Thereafter, you can specify rules for individual elements.
IE 5.x has a trouble with this, so you might want to add:
table {
font-size: 100%;
}
HTH,
Prabhath
http://nidahas.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] font size in a table
On 4/7/05 1:23 PM, Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the font-size in the body element. I've asked this question before but is there a standard way to set the font size across all elements (irrespsective of inheritance)? Thanks for your input. I had set the font-size for p ul and li and had used these tags within the td tags, but it still did not work. Russ supplied the answer for me: I was using the wrong doctype. I've changed: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN html to: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en lang=en and all works beautifully. I don't fully understand all the components of doctypes, but the one I'm now using is working. Compare http://hopestew.customer.netspace.net.au/index.html to: http://hopestew.customer.netspace.net.au/index2.html The *only* difference in the code of these two pages are the first two lines, yet the font size behaves itself in the table on the second page because of the doctype. I don't know whether is would help in your case, but it created a miracle in mine! Hope ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] font size in a table
Yes I had no idea that doctype could effect CSS rendering like this. I was always scraed to use XHTML 1.0 strict but the combination below looks good. It will become my new standard. Thanks for asking the question. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hope Stewart Sent: Monday, 4 July 2005 1:54 PM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] font size in a table On 4/7/05 1:23 PM, Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the font-size in the body element. I've asked this question before but is there a standard way to set the font size across all elements (irrespsective of inheritance)? Thanks for your input. I had set the font-size for p ul and li and had used these tags within the td tags, but it still did not work. Russ supplied the answer for me: I was using the wrong doctype. I've changed: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN html to: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en lang=en and all works beautifully. I don't fully understand all the components of doctypes, but the one I'm now using is working. Compare http://hopestew.customer.netspace.net.au/index.html to: http://hopestew.customer.netspace.net.au/index2.html The *only* difference in the code of these two pages are the first two lines, yet the font size behaves itself in the table on the second page because of the doctype. I don't know whether is would help in your case, but it created a miracle in mine! Hope ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font size in a table
Paul, To switch to standards compliant mode, you must have a full and complete doctype but it does NOT have to be XHTML at all. Hope could just have easily changed from an incomplete HTML4.01 Transitional doctype to a complete version. This is not a criticism of Hope, as she may have had other reasons for moving to XHML. For example this: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN Could be changed to this: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd; And this would trigger standards compliant mode. The same is true for HTML4.01 Strict and other doctypes. The key here is using the full doctype including the url. Keep in mind that some people choose to use incomplete doctypes deliberately so that they can deal will IE5 and IE6 in the same way. This is fine as long as you are aware about the implications and can deal with them. As you can see, font-size inheritance into tables is one of these implications. For the full range of correct doctypes, go here: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html Other doctype reading: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/Overview.html#quirks http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html http://www.webstandards.org/learn/reference/prolog_problems.html http://www.tantek.com/XHTML/Test/minimal.html HTH Russ Yes I had no idea that doctype could effect CSS rendering like this. I was always scraed to use XHTML 1.0 strict but the combination below looks good. It will become my new standard. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: * from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent, resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure...I don't normally bother with this infinitesimal difference, to be honest) Hi Patrick, IIRC Opera has had these rounding problems with number 6. I haven't tested newer versions. Those who are still using Opera 6 don't deserve better :-) The reason for taking 100.01% instead of 101% is called Safari. If you use 101% everything is okay except the huge texts in Safari. In the older Safari-versions I am sure this bug exists. I don't know if this bug has been fixed. Unfortunately Sarafi is not well documented and I don't use Macs. So with 100.01% you are on the safe side. Isn't CSS nice with browsers which are coded as if maintained by 6year-old kids ? -- Greetings from Germany, Jens Grochtdreis [www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
* IE has a problem resizing font sizes properly if the topmost size is
set in ems, but has no trouble with percentages. Setting the body in %
(or even the HTML element itself) will fix this problem. You can set
your base size to 100%, and then safely use ems for anything below that;
Hi Patrick, just wanting to make sure I understand what you wrote:
Say, if I write something like this:
.body {font: 100%; }
#whatever p {1em; }
The font size in the #whatever p is controlled by .body?
tee
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
.body {font: 100%; }
You probably mean body {...} without the full stop in front
Unless you have a class called .body
Yes :)
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
.body {font: 100%; }
You probably mean body {...} without the full stop in front
I meant YES for this.
tee
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote: So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this just a matter of style and preference? Two things: * IE has a problem resizing font sizes properly if the topmost size is set in ems, but has no trouble with percentages. Setting the body in % (or even the HTML element itself) will fix this problem. You can set your base size to 100%, and then safely use ems for anything below that; * from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent, resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure...I don't normally bother with this infinitesimal difference, to be honest) It's 100.01%. David Laakso -- http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
personally I always use the default font sized provided by css...if I
need it bigger then I use em values. here's an example:
body {
font: small Arial, sans-serif;
}
p { 1em; }
h1 {2em; }
h2 {1.8em; }
etc...
That way you know that the font will _always_ be readable. Even if
you start off with xx-small you know that every browser will (read
should) render it at a readable size. Avoid scaling fonts sizes
down...always scale them up.
HTH
D
www.dontcom.com
On 6/22/05, Cole Kuryakin - x7m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just gotten comfortable using ems for font sizing in my projects by
starting out with font-size=1em within the body tag. Now I'm seeing that
some people are using font-size = 101% in the body tag. I seem to remember
someone saying that using 1em in the body tag makes some versions of IE
flinch - which of course I'd rather avoid.
So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the
initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this
just a matter of style and preference?
Cole
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%
Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote: So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this just a matter of style and preference? Two things: * IE has a problem resizing font sizes properly if the topmost size is set in ems, but has no trouble with percentages. Setting the body in % (or even the HTML element itself) will fix this problem. You can set your base size to 100%, and then safely use ems for anything below that; * from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent, resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure...I don't normally bother with this infinitesimal difference, to be honest) -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG]-font size- lastminute.com
regarding the balance between type readability and aesthetics in general and with this site. I think that large blocks of text should be comfortable to read for everyone maybe at the expense of aesthetics, but in this case its only small amounts of type that can be read quickly and wont cause discomfort. i say leave it small. just an opionion-what do you think. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
Lothar B. Baier wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:47:16 +0100: But is it my fault, that dell or hp ore other produce laptops, which screensize and screen resolution are set to a default which makes it impossible to read a text easy? One size cannot fit all. With defaults come a means to change them to suit user needs. It should not bother you that some don't know this or don't use it. Is it my fault, that the designers of browsers after about 10 years of webstandards are not able to produce browsers which behave according to those standards? I don't think so. The newest and best ones do behave according to standards quite well, if not perfectly. So I think instead of spending a mayority of our time in finding solutions for problems, which are not caused by us, we should collect our energy to put presure on browser designers to produce browser which are standard Are you sure web page designers aren't causing problems? I suggest you don't know, but can find out a lot if you want. The open source Mozilla project, makers of Firefox, Camino and Mozilla Suite software, has several places where you can learn what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what users and page authors complain or rave about. I don't know about what M$ is or isn't doing, but I do know that the makers of Safari, Gecko and Opera do their best to produce browsers designed to work well within the defined standards, and still work as well as possible with M$'s undefined standards. Don't forget, a browser is a USER AGENT, not a web page author agent. It's purpose is to meet the needs of the user first, and web page authors secondarily. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
designer wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:28:45 -: When you buy wallpaper, how on earth do you manage to change the default size of the pattern? I don't. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. Also, when you buy someone a coffee table book, say, of great art works, do you buy them seven copies, each with a different size type/layout and ask them which one they want? No, but if I can't find one I can read, I don't buy any at all. When you watch something on Television, do you have a set of large magnifiers (or reducers) to put in front of the screen, so you can use the one to suit your mood? No, I just buy a big TV. :-) These things (and nearly everything else in life) are at the mercy of the designers who helped produced them. For a lot of web designers (as opposed to web site producing technicians), a web site is just the same Ah, but no it isn't. Everybody's viewport is a different size. Besides differences in display size, resolution and DPI, browser window sizes are limited only by the user's ability to discretely choose some particular size, being nearly infinitely adjustable. The designer has no reliable way to know either how big it is, or how big anything in it is. You know the old saying: you can't please all of the people all of the time? Anyone who thinks he can is the one being arrogant :-) The web is a bit different. It presents an opportunity to get really close most of the time, by utilizing user preferences, rather than fighting them. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Javier wrote on Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:25:51 +0100: I'm trying to develope a site with proportional font size. When I start to test what I did, I falled in problems with Firefox/IE differences. Fonts that in Firefox appears big or normal in IE appear so small. Then I tried to check other sites to see what the people are doing... I've seen a lot of combinations and tested various but nothing work as I want. May be I'm combining everything instead of take a method and try to apply it and solve its problems. Now I want to start from scratch but I'm not sure wich method to use. I've seen people that apply a font small in body and then use em's in all other settings. I've seen people that apply a 65% font-size in body, others a 100%, etc.. and then use em's in other settings but others use percentage... Now I'm really confused... Which is the best way to get fonts working identically in any browser ? Sorry for the question, is the second I ask about fonts, but this problem is driving me nuts. You're probably just encountering IE's font size inheritance bugs. Take a look at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/IE/IE6FontInherit.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/IE/IE6FontInherit3.html Then make sure you aren't letting any of those happen in your styling. Be sure if you still have difficulty to post a URL exhibiting the problem you are having if you ask for help. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
Lothar B. Baier wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:06:50 +0100: Somebody buys a laptop with a 14 inch screen and puts it 1400 by 1050 pixel screenresolution. Then he complains, that all of the text ist to small to read. That reminds me of the man, who choose a two-seated spider car because he likes it very much to drive fast with an open roof. And than he complains about the designer of that car, because he is not able to move his 5-room-houshold to the next city with that car and has to rent a truck. This not a good comparison. A laptop screen has what is known a native resolution. What that means is that choosing some other resolution, if that is possible at all to do, causes degraded rendering accuracy. Reducing resolution on such a display by some nominal amount, such as from 1400x1050 to 1024x768, causes a compounded effective resolution reduction. Nominally, going from 1400x1050 to 1024x768 is a resolution reduction of 46.5%, but doing that on a flat panel display produces degradation noticably in excess of 46.5%. To clarify my opinion: On every computer I know, it is possible to reduce the screenresolution to get bigger text to the screen. So, when sobody with a handicap on his eyesight uses to set the screenresolution to the max. possible, he should not blame a webdesigner for no longer being able to read the text on a website. I design all my websites on a computer with the screenresolution set appropriate to the size of the screen I use. If the user does the same, he will be able to read, what is written there. If not, it's not my fault. The problem is high resolution is designed for those who require high quality. People who pay extra to enjoy high quality don't easily accept the proposition that to improve some problem (font size) that they must discard the higher quality they paid for. What astute users of high resolution equipment do is adjust their own settings to ensure that high resolution does not shrink their fonts. Once they do this, their only problem with too small fonts results from web page designers who size in pt or px, disregarding user settings. IOW, changing resolution is not the correct way for a user to change font sizes. Depending on OS and software used, this is appropriately done by making some system wide settings change, or a software dependent preference change. Or, he could switch to a larger display. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Terrence Wood wrote on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:04:19 +1300: I also note that Felix has not stepped up to the plate to support any of his opinions with research based results despite demanding (and getting) the same from the ``designer's side'' of the debate. Your Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:50:17 +1300 post link did that for me. Pointing to bug fixes for mozilla doesn't cut it as research. I think if I provided some examples people could examine for themselves. Bugzilla pages are far more than patches to fix bugs. Before the patches happen, there is discussion about behavior, both of Mozilla and its competitors, whether or not the behavior is intended, and what if anything can or should be done about it. Much discussion is about text sizing, and much of that is from users complaining about text-related usability issues. The most repeated text-related user complaint can be summarized as why doesn't zoom stick?. However, the majority of users don't, There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.William James -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Natalie Buxton wrote at Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:58:25 +1100: Selectively quoting and removing the key point I made misrepresents what I said in my earlier email: I normally quote only portions relevant to comments I make. I believe that the best the designer can do is ensure their fonts are specified in relative units so that a site visitor can resize the text to whatever they like. For the vast majority, those sites WILL be ready for use on arrival. If the first thing visitors need to do on arrival is change the page's font size, even though they have previously set defaults that suit their needs for sites that honor defaults, those sites weren't ready for use on arrival. It really isn't as cut and dried as you are trying to imply. If designers left all text at the browser default for whatever resolution they are designing on, why bother with design at all? There's a LOT more to designing for the web than fonts. With the current state of browsers and standards, designing complex sites that don't break with the use of a wide range of font sizes is anything but trivial. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Terrence Wood wrote on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:50:17 +1300: People get off making this assumption because 10-12pt type is the most common font size used in the print world, Web pages aren't printed on fixed size paper. Browser viewports are for all practical purposes infinitely adjustable in size. Not counting those who run their browsers maximized, it's nearly impossible to find two people using the same size viewport in a sample of practical size. Web pages thus need to be able to adapt to pages whose width is unknown, and whose type size is unknown. and 10-12px on screen is close approximation of that. Only on old Macs and some X Windows systems is that true. 12px = 12px only at 72 DPI, and very few computers use so low a resolution for the internet any more. The most common default font size on today's internet is 16px, which at the standard today browser DPI of 96 is 12pt. 10pt at 96 DPI is 13.33px. IE6 defaults to 12pt. Gecko defaults to 16px. Windoze users often chose a non-default system font size large fonts, which keeps the IE6 default at 12pt, but changes its meaning via a switch to 120 DPI that makes it 20px, 25% larger. 12px type is the preferred size according to research: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm According to that page, 12pt is the preferred size. Felix where is proof to back up any of your sweeping generalisations about users? The page you cited seems sufficient, but http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/wauth2.html has links to more if you need it. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font size... [ADMIN - CLOSED AGAIN]
Felix. A thread closed by a core member is not to be opened again. Period! The topic has been exhausted. If you have fresh information on the topic after a thread has been closed, send it directly to the person and not to the list. Peter ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED
THREAD CLOSED ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font size ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED
Here here. Bout 30 emails wasting everyones time. More about standards less about egos! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of russ - maxdesign Sent: Friday, 19 November 2004 9:21 PM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED
On 11/19/04 4:02 AM Brett Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Here here. Make that hear, hear and you're on! :-) Best, Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Henry Tapia wrote: Points about allowing the user as much text size control as possible are well made and I agree, however I don't think I'd have a job as a designer if I relied upon the average user to change their browser's default text-size manually. In my several years working on the web, and as a user prior to that, I've never witnessed that behaviour, even amongst savvy users (text-zooming yes, adjusting browser default text-size, no). hank Hi, I don't believe I have either Hank. I would go so far as to suggest that the average user does not realize the default font size *can* be changed. Additionally, while some users are aware that text can be zoomed using the mouse or keyboard, they are still a minor portion of Web users. Someone who has poor eye sight has likely researched their options, and adjusted their font size accordingly. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Usability dogma's [was Re: [WSG] Font size]
Felix Miata wrote: David Laakso wrote: Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: I myself set a base size on the body element (most of the time 76% like Owen Briggs) and then use em's to set up the rest of the typography. Hmm, 76% on the body element, thats 24% smaller than my default? Kinda tough on us older folks. David, you understate the problem. I don't know why there's this 'designers who reduce browser base font size are evil' attitude. I go with Owen Briggs, who relates browser default size to general OS GUI elements' font size. If I follow your and Davids train of thought, I can bet that I get several reactions by visitors 'complaining' that the type is so large, and if I can't make it smaller (no, I'm not kidding). Bottom line: there's no general _rule_ you should apply as a designer, other than that for every design decision you should have a good reason. I.e.: you never should apply something just because 'you feel like it', but instead have arguments why you do it that way --be it usability concerns, market or site audience analysis, or conceptual/design aesthetics. Jeroen -- vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: Usability dogma's [was Re: [WSG] Font size]
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: I don't know why there's this 'designers who reduce browser base font size are evil' attitude. I go with Owen Briggs, who relates browser default size to general OS GUI elements' font size. No problem with that, other than the fact that we see those tiny text-bits all the time. That is: we have no need to read them. On a web page: If the text doesn't matter, then we don't have to read it either-- or we do it my way: blow the font-size to pieces, and break the layout if it relies on font-size. If I follow your and Davids train of thought, I can bet that I get several reactions by visitors 'complaining' that the type is so large, and if I can't make it smaller (no, I'm not kidding). I know you are not kidding... Every single visitor has a preference, whether they voice it or not. We also have the don't shout at me factor, that we should be aware of. Bottom line: there's no general _rule_ you should apply as a designer, other than that for every design decision you should have a good reason. I.e.: you never should apply something just because 'you feel like it', but instead have arguments why you do it that way --be it usability concerns, market or site audience analysis, or conceptual/design aesthetics. My bottom line is: if forced text-resizing breaks the layout, then all the above fails. If the page can take it, then all the above is done well. Well balanced font-sizes is not the problem, but can we have some solid web pages, please? Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font size
The solution you posted is user oriented. What about developers ? Surely ANY solution has to be user orientated. After all, we are designing sites for users, not for developers. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Javier Sent: 18 November 2004 09:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size David Laakso wrote: Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: I myself set a base size on the body element (most of the time 76% like Owen Briggs) and then use em's to set up the rest of the typography. Hmm, 76% on the body element, thats 24% smaller than my default? Kinda tough on us older folks. David, you understate the problem. Take a look at: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area76.html and the three links at the ending the content. -- Well, I love critic people...but also, I know is easy to be critic but is not so easy to give solutions. I really respect your opinion and could agree with it but I find you are so critic with web developers but give no solutions to the problem. Now, I'm a web developer that don't want to fall in the tirany you described. What should I do to be a better developer with the user in mine ? Do you have a solution or recommendation ? The solution you posted is user oriented. What about developers ? thanks in advance Javier __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
People get off making this assumption because 10-12pt type is the most common font size used in the print world, and 10-12px on screen is close approximation of that. 12px type is the preferred size according to research: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm Felix where is proof to back up any of your sweeping generalisations about users? Obviously you are quite passionate about font sizing. I wonder why then you assert font sizes for headings? Surely, you views about font sizing must extend to any font not just the declaration on the body? Terrence Wood. Felix Miata wrote: Where do people get off making this assumption? Where are the poll results that show most people think browser text is too big? Nearly everyone I've run into who thinks browser text is too big is a web page designer. Most web browser users I've run into think most web page text is too tiny. Based upon total population, the number of users who think web page text is too small has to be far greater than the number of designers who think the default is too big, who consequently reduce it on the pages they create. I'm not alone in this line of thinking: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-size-quotes.html -- *** Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards? Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004. See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details *** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font size
The solution you posted is user oriented. What about developers ? Surely ANY solution has to be user orientated. After all, we are designing sites for users, not for developers. Chris Yes, as far as I'm asking for help to develope a well designed site, I'm thinking in the user. When I said, The solution you posted is user oriented. What about developers ?, I mean: what should I do to avoid to force users to change their browser font size as the given samples. I hope this could clarify my concept.. :) javier __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Hi, Felix Miata wrote: It is arrogant to impose it, rather than merely wish it. What you are doing is saying to your visitors I can't actually know what your default is, but regardless what it really is, it's too big for me, and I'm imposing a xx% reduction from whatever you chose as most appropriate for yourself, whether your default is 9px, or 90px or anything in between. Perhaps it is a bit arrogant for a designer or developer to decide for the user which font-size is most suitable, but design requires that choices be made. Otherwise, we should simply abandon all forms of content styling and rely entirely upon the user to assert their styling desires via whatever means are available to them. We consistently make choices for the user that we feel will improve the user's experience. In many cases we specify font-face, line-height, letter-spacing, color, background-color, emphasis, strength, paragraph width, text effects, and heading levels. All of these choices impact readability and they each alter the user's default settings to some extent. For example, the page you provided earlier (http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html) is a prime example of how the author simultaneously champions and ignores the importance of the user's preferences. To my eyes, the page is far more readable unstyled than when the font-color, background-color, headings, and font-face are altered to suit the authors idea of pleasant. The font-size seems to have the least impact on how easy or difficult the document is to read, but is the main focus of the information. The web is about control, but not the designer's, it is the user's control that is central to the design and philosophy of the web. John Allsopp at http://webstandardsgroup.org/features/john-allsopp.cfm This particular page sets the font-size for paragraphs and list to 80%, so I don't think this is the best supporting argument for your point. In fact, most of the elements on this page are altered to be either larger or smaller than my default settings. I do, however, have control, which is the key factor of the equation. Still, the average user may or may not know how to exercise this control, so it is evident the issue extends beyond designers and developers and ventures into the realm of user interface and education. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Nick Lo wrote: Nothing fundamentally wrong with your arguments but to balance them a little I had a client just recently ask for text to be made smaller (it wasn't in any way large) and they often ask for spacing to be reduced in order to get more content above the fold. This is where a really good designer puts on expert salesman's shoes. Start by doing exactly what the client wants, but by changing the browser default (or Gecko zoom) to whatever size he likes, not the stylesheet. Do it on a wide range of common desktop display sizes, preferably side-by-side, and from 3'-4' away in addition to typical viewing distance. Show him on a UXGA laptop and a PDA too. Show him that not all users run their browsers maximized. Make him want what you know is best instead of what he thinks he wants. You're the design expert, not him. I think pointing the blame at designers is a little general when you consider the overriding need for smaller font sizes is to squeeze more content in, particularly with regards to advertising, promotional placements, etc. Unless designers can afford sales specialists to do this part of their job, they need to get good at sales. Otherwise, blame rests on them too. They should know better, regardless whether they can convince their clients of it. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
Hi, everybody! I am reading the list for quite some time, so first of all a big thank to all of you who share their knowledge and tricks with fools like me. Regarding to the font size discussion I feel I have to give my first input to the list: Somebody buys a laptop with a 14 inch screen and puts it 1400 by 1050 pixel screenresolution. Then he complains, that all of the text ist to small to read. That reminds me of the man, who choose a two-seated spider car because he likes it very much to drive fast with an open roof. And than he complains about the designer of that car, because he is not able to move his 5-room-houshold to the next city with that car and has to rent a truck. To clarify my opinion: On every computer I know, it is possible to reduce the screenresolution to get bigger text to the screen. So, when sobody with a handicap on his eyesight uses to set the screenresolution to the max. possible, he should not blame a webdesigner for no longer being able to read the text on a website. I design all my websites on a computer with the screenresolution set appropriate to the size of the screen I use. If the user does the same, he will be able to read, what is written there. If not, it's not my fault. My job is to design pleesing websites, which are liked by both, the one who pays and the average user. I don't think it's my job, to solve all the problems in readability caused by bad browsers, wrong adjusted screens an bad default settings. Nobody pays me for that. Lothar B. Baier (an older guy, wearing glasses!) P.S. All typing mistakes belong to the one, who finds them! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
designer wrote: When you buy wallpaper, how on earth do you manage to change the default size of the pattern? Also, when you buy someone a coffee table book, say, of great art works, do you buy them seven copies, each with a different size type/layout and ask them which one they want? You are talking about physical objects. A website is not a physical object. If you want absolute control of your layout, do print design When you watch something on Television, do you have a set of large magnifiers (or reducers) to put in front of the screen, so you can use the one to suit your mood? Interestingly enough, there are screen magnifiers used by people with low vision...but mentioning this obviously breaks your already very stretched analogy... These things (and nearly everything else in life) are at the mercy of the designers who helped produced them. For a lot of web designers (as opposed to web site producing technicians), a web site is just the same - it isn't arrogant, it's called passion. No, it's called myopic ignorance of the subject and of best practices. If you as a client don't like what a web designer does, you choose someone else, With the attitude displayed, I'm sure they will, I'm afraid. Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
Lothar B. Baier wrote: I design all my websites on a computer with the screenresolution set appropriate to the size of the screen I use. If the user does the same, he will be able to read, what is written there. If not, it's not my fault. It's just a shame not everybody is like you then, isn't it? Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
-Original Message- From: Lothar B. Baier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 19 November 2004 7:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance I design all my websites on a computer with the screenresolution set appropriate to the size of the screen I use. If the user does the same, he will be able to read, what is written there. If not, it's not my fault. If a general user can't use a program that was designed for him, it is your fault. If he cannot read it, if it is too complex, if it completely misses his attention or gives him the feeling the site was not made for him - all of this is the developer's fault. Or do you want to blame the user for that? My job is to design pleesing websites, which are liked by both, the one who pays and the average user. I don't think it's my job, to solve all the problems in readability caused by bad browsers, wrong adjusted screens an bad default settings. Nobody pays me for that. People will pay you for it later. You produce good websites that work for all your users and it will pay back as there are no unsatisfied customers. You are talking about designing pleasing websites: my mother, who hasn't got a clue on how to adjust her screen, increase font-size or use any other browser than IE 5, don't you think she has the right to expect a pleasing website with a font she can read? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
Hi! Patrick and Andreas, you both are right on one hand. But on the other one it's not so simple. My goal is surely to produce websites, which can be use by everybody and please their eyes. But is it my fault, that dell or hp ore other produce laptops, which screensize and screen resolution are set to a default which makes it impossible to read a text easy? Is it my fault, that the designers of browsers after about 10 years of webstandards are not able to produce browsers which behave according to those standards? I don't think so. And it's also not my fault, if somebody uses a computer with little knowledge of what he is doing. To go back to the example from my last post: if someone drives a car without driverlicense and runs into a tree, is that the fault of the car's designer? Have you ever seen a user who reads the handbook before he switches on the comp? I am in the computer business for more then 25 years now. I'm still waiting for that user. What I wanted to say is that if I try to please every single user in the wolrd, I would spend 95% of my time on special solutions or hacks, which are pleasing only 5% of the users. Nobody will pay me for that 95% time. Ideals are nice in theory, but usely not realy good, when they are put into practice. So I think instead of spending a mayority of our time in finding solutions for problems, which are not caused by us, we should collect our energy to put presure on browser designers to produce browser which are standard and to hardware designers to not set the default resolution of a screen to what is technicaly possible but to just something, which is compatible with human eyesight. Lothar ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Selectively quoting and removing the key point I made misrepresents what I said in my earlier email: There is nothing arrogant about wanting my design translated as close as possible across all platforms, for all visitors. There is only arrogance where the designer (or worse still, the client who the site is for) fixes the font sizes in such a way that the site visitor cannot re-size to their own liking, or re-sizing breaks the overall flow for reading. The bit where I say there is only arrogance when designers (or their clients) impose a fixed font size. I believe that the best the designer can do is ensure their fonts are specified in relative units so that a site visitor can resize the text to whatever they like. For the vast majority, those sites WILL be ready for use on arrival. And for the minority who have a vision impairment, or are advanced users with huge resolutions with tiny default settings, they can resize using the inbuilt browser functions. It really isn't as cut and dried as you are trying to imply. If designers left all text at the browser default for whatever resolution they are designing on, why bother with design at all? What not serve everything as plain html with some images aligned left or right here and there? On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:31:00 -0500, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Natalie Buxton wrote: There is nothing arrogant about wanting my design translated as close as possible across all platforms, for all visitors. [...] It is arrogant to impose it, rather than merely wish it. What you are doing is saying to your visitors I can't actually know what your default is, but regardless what it really is, it's too big for me, and I'm imposing a xx% reduction from whatever you chose as most appropriate for yourself, whether your default is 9px, or 90px or anything in between. Whether you realize or intend it, or not, it is what you're doing. It causes https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269880 or https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=243261 or some other variation thereof to happen frequently. (Most such bugs get resolved WONTFIX or INVALID directly instead of properly marked as duplicates of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65571 ) -- Website Designer/Developer www.nataliebuxton.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size
Absolutely Natalie. I also note that Felix has not stepped up to the plate to support any of his opinions with research based results despite demanding (and getting) the same from the ``designer's side'' of the debate. Pointing to bug fixes for mozilla doesn't cut it as research. I think if someone knows how to file a bug report, then they also know how to customize their browser experience to circumvent design decisions 'imposed' on them by the nature of the medium (i.e. it has a print paradigm. viz. web pages). Felix obviously knows how to customise his browser - he even offers tutorials for others on how to use user style sheets to override a web page design. And that's great. However, the majority of users don't, so designers 'impose' typography rules inherited from the print world. Seems as natural as writing in sentences, forming paragraphs, and trying to spell correctly to me. Given his penchant for sweeping generalisations I have the opinion that Felix thinks professional web designers are party-and-latté types who base all their decisions on pure aesthetic qualities. This could not be further from the truth. Most decisions come from a well grounded knowledge of typography inherited from print design, together with other decisions based on marketing/branding, accessibility, usability and visual communication skills. Let's not forget that the web is an easy medium to publish to and a lot of it is made up by amateur enthusiasts. IMHO most of the really poor design on the web is created by developers because they know how to publish content but they lack the above mentioned designer skill set. (Do your own research on that one, for example google ASP) Terrence Wood. On 2004-11-19 10:58 AM, Natalie Buxton wrote: Selectively quoting and removing the key point I made misrepresents what I said in my earlier email: -- *** Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards? Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004. See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details *** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
One comment... which can be use by everybody As long as you do that - there wont be any problems. If the user is an idiot - and they configure their machine in a stupid way - that's no-one's fault except the user. Gary ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font size and arrogance | accessibility in general I say
I would spend 95% of my time on special solutions or hacks, which are pleasing only 5% of the users. Although I wouldn't say it works out to be such a big percentage, but you are right you would spend some time on it. But you need to start spending that time on it, new laws being passed will sooner or later force you to start designing with accessibility in mind (recent cases against priceline etc). And to be fair, its not about 'pleasing' the users, it is about making the website usable to the audience. You may be focusing on font-size in your argument, but it sounds like an argument against accessibility in general. I would agree about hardware designers etc, but that just adds to Patrick's argument, people will be accessing your site with more than one resolution, you cannot predict how they will do that. By making your site have resizeable text you can accommodate them. It is harder to do, but the net gain is worth it. I wonder if this will turn into a bigger argument about fluid versus fixed designing... Tim Hill Computer Associates Graphic Artist tel: +612 9937 0792 fax: +612 9937 0546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lothar B. Baier Sent: Friday, 19 November 2004 8:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance Hi! Patrick and Andreas, you both are right on one hand. But on the other one it's not so simple. My goal is surely to produce websites, which can be use by everybody and please their eyes. But is it my fault, that dell or hp ore other produce laptops, which screensize and screen resolution are set to a default which makes it impossible to read a text easy? Is it my fault, that the designers of browsers after about 10 years of webstandards are not able to produce browsers which behave according to those standards? I don't think so. And it's also not my fault, if somebody uses a computer with little knowledge of what he is doing. To go back to the example from my last post: if someone drives a car without driverlicense and runs into a tree, is that the fault of the car's designer? Have you ever seen a user who reads the handbook before he switches on the comp? I am in the computer business for more then 25 years now. I'm still waiting for that user. What I wanted to say is that if I try to please every single user in the wolrd, I would spend 95% of my time on special solutions or hacks, which are pleasing only 5% of the users. Nobody will pay me for that 95% time. Ideals are nice in theory, but usely not realy good, when they are put into practice. So I think instead of spending a mayority of our time in finding solutions for problems, which are not caused by us, we should collect our energy to put presure on browser designers to produce browser which are standard and to hardware designers to not set the default resolution of a screen to what is technicaly possible but to just something, which is compatible with human eyesight. Lothar ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
But is it my fault, that dell or hp ore other produce laptops, which screensize and screen resolution are set to a default which makes it impossible to read a text easy? Is it my fault, that the designers of browsers after about 10 years of webstandards are not able to produce browsers which behave according to those standards? I don't think so. And it's also not my fault, if somebody uses a computer with little knowledge of what he is doing. I absolutely agree with you that we need to put pressure on browser companies to change and stick to the standards. But that takes a lot of time. When I first decided to ignore Netscape 4 by moving away from tables it felt scary. Now I just love it. But making that step took a long time. Sure it's not your fault if somebody uses a computer without being experienced in doing so. But that doesn't mean we should not consider those users. How many times does it happen to people that they try to program a new Video Recorder and it just doesn't work. Do they read the manual? No. Is it the fault of the manufacturer that they didn't read the manual? No. But if the manufacturer made the interface of the Video Recorder more intuitive and easy to use, everybody would be happy and the customer would recommend that Video Recorder to others. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance | accessibility in general I say
hardware designers to not set the default resolution of a screen to what is technicaly possible but to just something, which is compatible with human eyesight. What size, a pixel? Engineers have created full-color screens, 400 pixels square, which are smaller than a dime. Certainly setting a monitor made of such things to display 1024x768 by default (the size of a quarter!) would not be compatible with human eyesight. Font rescalability and sizing a font based on today's technology will be useful on today's technology. But tomorrow is when it will be used. Standards aren't just about helping the blind to read. Just my little thought on the matter, in no way directed at one person or another, even though I quoted a portion of one person's post. This has been an interesting, if heated, thread. I think a large part of it revolves around being unable to measure people's default font size. The arrogance vs. idealist portion of the discussion. So I'm building something to measure the default size of things. Anyone know of someone else that has already done this? I'd hate to duplicate effort. -- Ben Curtis WebSciences International http://www.websciences.org/ v: (310) 478-6648 f: (310) 235-2067 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
